We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

They are both fine for you and mybe others but to understand Buddha's teachings regarding True Self/Buddha Nature ' No self ' doesn't fit....

I gave a fairly comprehensive overview, then provided a link with a fairly long description, so the meaning of no-self, would be formed in context.

For example if I were talking of true self I would use a term such as not-self as in neti-neti. In this case I was talking about the momentary nature of santana, which has no self that endures from moment to moment. If I said there was non-self (or not-self) that endures it would make no sense. Hence it was far more appropriate to use the term 'no-self'.

I gave a fairly comprehensive overview, then provided a link with a fairly long description, so the meaning of no-self, would be formed in context.

For example if I were talking of true self I would use a term such as not-self as in neti-neti. In this case I was talking about the momentary nature of santana, which has no self that endures from moment to moment. If I said there was non-self (or not-self) that endures it would make no sense. Hence it was far more appropriate to use the term 'no-self'.

' In this case I was talking about the momentary nature of santana, which has no self that endures from moment to moment '

Some Buddhist believe that santana is the self, but that's another story

Who knows, I haven't read or heard all of their interpretations but I think that after stripping away what is not self they believe that mind stream is a self seeing it is carried over in rebirth. Different schools and individual Buddhist obviously have their own ideas.

' Some Tibetan scholars, such as the Sakya master Rendawa, who accept that there is such a thing as self or soul, the "kangsak ki dak" (Tib. gang zag gi bdag). However, the same word, the "kangsak ki dak," the self, or person, or personal self, or identity, is at the same time denied by many other scholars ' . Matthieu Ricard addresses this when he speaks of both the moment-to-moment stream of impermanent events and the continuous individual stream of consciousness. This “individual stream of consciousness” describes a “self” or “soul” beyond the aggregates. When awakened this is Buddha Nature..

Good way too make oneself immortal to crate an idea of a Buddha nature... or maybe it comes from a later line of misinterpretations

' Buddha-nature is our original nature. When we have no idea of ego, we have awakened life, our egotistic ideas are delusion, covering our Buddha-nature. Everything has Buddha-nature, so something apart from Buddha-nature is just a delusion . . . So to be a human being is to be a Buddha. Buddha-nature is just another name for human nature, our true human nature '

Who knows, I haven't read or heard all of their interpretations but I think that after stripping away what is not self they believe that mind stream is a self seeing it is carried over in rebirth. Different schools and individual Buddhist obviously have their own ideas.

' Some Tibetan scholars, such as the Sakya master Rendawa, who accept that there is such a thing as self or soul, the "kangsak ki dak" (Tib. gang zag gi bdag). However, the same word, the "kangsak ki dak," the self, or person, or personal self, or identity, is at the same time denied by many other scholars ' . Matthieu Ricard addresses this when he speaks of both the moment-to-moment stream of impermanent events and the continuous individual stream of consciousness. This “individual stream of consciousness” describes a “self” or “soul” beyond the aggregates. When awakened this is Buddha Nature..

.

Well everyone has their own ideas, and 99% of them are crazy ideas, but not crazy enough to be true. Teehee.

Basically I think Gotama generally avoided the Brahamic teachings on 'who you really are', 'true self' etc, because his teaching was basically there is no self in any individual sense and the view that there is would lead only to despair. He can be quoted as saying, "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."